Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/634/2018

Smt. Nidhi Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Sharma Adv.

07 Jul 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	634 of 2018
Date  of  Institution	:	13.11.2018
Date   of   Decision	:	07.07.2021

 

 

 

 

Smt.Nidhi Gupta, R/o House No.3373, Vidhan Sabhan Society, Sector 49/D, Chandigarh.

         …..Complainant

Versus

1]  Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, through its Manager, Credit Cards Division, Plot No.153-154, Madhya Marg, Sector 9/C, Chandigarh 160017

2]  Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, through its Director Regd. Office: 27 BKC, C 27, G Block, Bandra Kurla, Bandra (E), Mumbai 4000510

    ….. Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN             PRESIDENT

         SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

                                SH.B.M.SHARMA                    MEMBER                         

 

 

Argued by :-  Sh.Amit Sharma, Advocate for the complainant

   Sh.Maninder Pal Singh, Advocate for OP

 

 

PER B.M.SHARMA, MEMBER

 

         Briefly stated, the complainant was issued Credit Card No.4166 4643 0430 9545 having CRN No.63494778 by the OP Bank    (Ann.C-1).  It is averred that on 12.1.2018, someone has made two transaction of Rs.10,000/- each from the said credit card of the complainant for which she received messages (Ann.C-2).  It is stated that since the said transactions were not made by the complainant, she reported the matter to OPs through customer care service as well as email (Ann.C-3).  It is also stated that the complainant also moved application for said illegal transaction before the Banking Ombudsman, RBI, Sector 17, Chandigarh on 15.1.2018 (ann.C-4) and before the Cyber Cell, Chandigarh Police on 12.1.2018 (Ann.C-5).  It is submitted that the OP Bank instead of resolving her complaint regarding said illegal transactions from his credit card, started calling her for making the payment, though not raised demand for the disputed transaction in monthly statements of account/bill. The complainant kept on writing email to the OP Bank, but they did nothing. However, the Bank disbursed the disputed transaction amount in favour of the merchant in an illegal manner and vide statement of account dated 15.7.2018 (Ann.C-10 & C-11 colly) raised the demand for the disputed amount from the complainant.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the said act & conduct of the OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 

2]       The OPs have filed written reply and admitted the issuance of the credit card in question to the complainant per her request.  It is stated that the complainant lodged a service request with the OP Bank and the Bank registered the same and acted on it promptly.  It is admitted that the OP has raised a chargeback in the complainant’s account on good faith basis for the alleged transaction of Rs.10,000/- each done at Airtel Payment just to ensure that the cardholder should not be charged for any interest/charges on the disputed amount till the final confirmation on the complaint is raised.  It is submitted that the complainant is not entitled for any compensation due to the mistake of her own as the alleged disputed transaction was done through a secure mode, whose personal knowledge can only be with the cardholder and can’t be shared with the third person till it is compromised at the cardholder’s end. It is also submitted that OPs have already submitted the report about the disputed transaction to the Investigating Officer of the Cyber Cell and even has intimated the complainant vide email dated 2.2.2018.  It is pleaded that the complainant has committed default in making regular payment to the bank against the facilities used by her as provided against her credit card.  It is also pleaded that the complainant has been ignorant to pay the disputed amount. Denying other allegations, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

3]       Rejoinder has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the reply filed by OPs.

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contention.

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have gone through entire documents on record including written arguments.

6]       Thorough perusal of the record shows that the transactions in dispute had been done by the complainant through secured mode of One Time Password (OTP) and the details are known to the cardholder/complainant only. The OTP SMS Log, Transaction SMS Log, Account Statement (Ann.R-2/2 & Ann.R-2/3) proves that OTP was sent to the complainant before the transaction took place and after the complainant shared these details, the actual transaction had taken place. Therefore, no case of any deficiency in service is made out against the OPs.

7]       Taking into consideration the facts & circumstances of the case as well as discussion made in preceding paragraphs, we are of the opinion that no case of deficiency in service is made out against the OPs. Therefore, the present complaint is dismissed being without merit.  No order as to costs.

        The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced                                                             

7^th July, 2021                                                            sd/-

                                      (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

 (B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER